Page 6 of 18
Re: Brexit what Brexit!
Posted: 16 Jan 2019, 11:51am
by Dr. Medulla
Flex wrote: ↑16 Jan 2019, 11:40am
Dr. Medulla wrote: ↑16 Jan 2019, 10:29am
This is only partially true. Right now, if the House and Senate passed a spending bill to restore funding to all these departments that are shut down without the wall nonsense, Trump would veto it. However, the bill would then go back to both the House and Senate and if they re-pass the bill with two-thirds majorities, it overrides his veto. So it's not just Trump but the Republicans in the Senate that won't defy him and pass a veto-proof spending bill. Trump's the big problem, but he has some essential handmaidens. The absurdity is that the system is set up that this kind of situation is able to exist.
I actually think Mitch McConnell deserves most of the blame here. Our structure of government is designed for the legislative branch to be more powerful than the executive. Mitch's acquiescence to Trump is the total absconding of responsibility. He could get the government open today without Trump if he wanted, but Trump can't do the same without Mitch.
In the larger picture, yes, I agree, but in terms of process it's Trump. It only comes back to McConnell and 2/3's if Trump vetoes. We don't have to consider McConnell's role if Trump drops his idiotic demand.
Re: Brexit what Brexit!
Posted: 16 Jan 2019, 11:53am
by Marky Dread
Dr. Medulla wrote: ↑16 Jan 2019, 10:29am
Marky Dread wrote: ↑16 Jan 2019, 10:13am
US
I'm stunned that the president has the power to shut everything down. Forcing people who are trying to feed their families to have no job/income.
This is only partially true. Right now, if the House and Senate passed a spending bill to restore funding to all these departments that are shut down without the wall nonsense, Trump would veto it. However, the bill would then go back to both the House and Senate and if they re-pass the bill with two-thirds majorities, it overrides his veto. So it's not just Trump but the Republicans in the Senate that won't defy him and pass a veto-proof spending bill. Trump's the big problem, but he has some essential handmaidens.
The absurdity is that the system is set up that this kind of situation is able to exist.
Yep that's the bit I'm stunned about. The stupid idea that Trump wants to build a wall to protect "his" people's America is hurting all.
Re: Brexit what Brexit!
Posted: 16 Jan 2019, 12:12pm
by Marky Dread
Dr. Medulla wrote: ↑16 Jan 2019, 11:33am
File under: History, Rhyming, not Repeating
In 1956, the then chancellor of the exchequer Harold Macmillan commissioned his officials to suggest the best way for Britain to integrate itself into the rapidly growing western European economy. Their plan, soon adopted as official policy, was that Britain and the emerging European Community would both join a new free trade area for industrial goods. In this perfect world, Britain would not be in the EC, would not have to pool any of its sovereignty with the other European powers, would maintain its preferential trade with the Commonwealth, would enjoy frictionless trade with Europe but would still be free to do whatever deals it wanted with the rest of the world. It could, in other words, have its cake and eat it. And why would the other Europeans agree to this? Because, as the Board of Trade explained: “The possibility of UK cooperation would be so welcome [to the Europeans] that we should be able to enter the plan more or less on our own terms.”
If this sounds familiar even to those of us who are not historians of British economic policy in the 1950s, it’s because it is the vision for Brexit that was advertised 60 years later. Plan G, as it was known in 1956, is now Plan A for the true believers: we can have all the benefits of being in the EU without the burdens and compromises of actual membership. And the other Europeans will be so glad that we have condescended to deal with them that we can dictate our own terms.
It didn’t work in 1956, not least because, as Kevin O’Rourke states in his crisp, clear and quietly devastating history, “UK policymakers had been focused on what was required in order to achieve a domestic consensus in Britain. Not surprisingly, they had produced a blueprint that was indeed a very good deal for Britain – but in so doing they had paid insufficient attention to other countries’ interests.” And of course it has not worked since 2016 for precisely the same reasons. Here, as in so much else, we see that if Brexit has a history, it is not a linear one – it loops back not just to an imagined past but to assumptions about Britain’s place in the world that were untenable even in the 1950s.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/ ... rke-review
Scattershot journalism.
You can compare all the history like the 1956 idea/failure but that never happened and times and goverments change. The only relevant facts are that of when the UK first joined the EU (EEC) in 1973 followed by the 1975 referendum for continued membership which had a 67% vote in favour of staying. The UK has far from had it it's own way being vetoed by the French government in 1963 and again in 1967. Only in 1969 did the UK get the green light to join. So it makes no difference to what plan the UK government agrees is best it will still be down to the remainder of the EU to decide and agree.
Re: Brexit what Brexit!
Posted: 16 Jan 2019, 12:26pm
by Dr. Medulla
Marky Dread wrote: ↑16 Jan 2019, 12:12pm
Dr. Medulla wrote: ↑16 Jan 2019, 11:33am
File under: History, Rhyming, not Repeating
In 1956, the then chancellor of the exchequer Harold Macmillan commissioned his officials to suggest the best way for Britain to integrate itself into the rapidly growing western European economy. Their plan, soon adopted as official policy, was that Britain and the emerging European Community would both join a new free trade area for industrial goods. In this perfect world, Britain would not be in the EC, would not have to pool any of its sovereignty with the other European powers, would maintain its preferential trade with the Commonwealth, would enjoy frictionless trade with Europe but would still be free to do whatever deals it wanted with the rest of the world. It could, in other words, have its cake and eat it. And why would the other Europeans agree to this? Because, as the Board of Trade explained: “The possibility of UK cooperation would be so welcome [to the Europeans] that we should be able to enter the plan more or less on our own terms.”
If this sounds familiar even to those of us who are not historians of British economic policy in the 1950s, it’s because it is the vision for Brexit that was advertised 60 years later. Plan G, as it was known in 1956, is now Plan A for the true believers: we can have all the benefits of being in the EU without the burdens and compromises of actual membership. And the other Europeans will be so glad that we have condescended to deal with them that we can dictate our own terms.
It didn’t work in 1956, not least because, as Kevin O’Rourke states in his crisp, clear and quietly devastating history, “UK policymakers had been focused on what was required in order to achieve a domestic consensus in Britain. Not surprisingly, they had produced a blueprint that was indeed a very good deal for Britain – but in so doing they had paid insufficient attention to other countries’ interests.” And of course it has not worked since 2016 for precisely the same reasons. Here, as in so much else, we see that if Brexit has a history, it is not a linear one – it loops back not just to an imagined past but to assumptions about Britain’s place in the world that were untenable even in the 1950s.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/ ... rke-review
Scattershot journalism.
You can compare all the history like the 1956 idea/failure but that never happened and times and goverments change. The only relevant facts are that of when the UK first joined the EU (EEC) in 1973 followed by the 1975 referendum for continued membership which had a 67% vote in favour of staying. The UK has far from had it it's own way being vetoed by the French government in 1963 and again in 1967. Only in 1969 did the UK get the green light to join. So it makes no difference to what plan the UK government agrees is best it will still be down to the remainder of the EU to decide and agree.
The point is only that the dream of a "cake and eat it" relationship with Europe is not something peculiar to UKIP in the 2nd decade of the 21st century. Historians are attracted to the these kinds of ideological echoes, that ideas, good or bad, never die, but hibernate and mutate and emerge again at the oddest times. William Faulkner put it so wonderfully when he said the past isn't dead, it's not even past.
Re: Brexit what Brexit!
Posted: 16 Jan 2019, 12:42pm
by Silent Majority
Marky Dread wrote: ↑16 Jan 2019, 12:12pm
Dr. Medulla wrote: ↑16 Jan 2019, 11:33am
File under: History, Rhyming, not Repeating
In 1956, the then chancellor of the exchequer Harold Macmillan commissioned his officials to suggest the best way for Britain to integrate itself into the rapidly growing western European economy. Their plan, soon adopted as official policy, was that Britain and the emerging European Community would both join a new free trade area for industrial goods. In this perfect world, Britain would not be in the EC, would not have to pool any of its sovereignty with the other European powers, would maintain its preferential trade with the Commonwealth, would enjoy frictionless trade with Europe but would still be free to do whatever deals it wanted with the rest of the world. It could, in other words, have its cake and eat it. And why would the other Europeans agree to this? Because, as the Board of Trade explained: “The possibility of UK cooperation would be so welcome [to the Europeans] that we should be able to enter the plan more or less on our own terms.”
If this sounds familiar even to those of us who are not historians of British economic policy in the 1950s, it’s because it is the vision for Brexit that was advertised 60 years later. Plan G, as it was known in 1956, is now Plan A for the true believers: we can have all the benefits of being in the EU without the burdens and compromises of actual membership. And the other Europeans will be so glad that we have condescended to deal with them that we can dictate our own terms.
It didn’t work in 1956, not least because, as Kevin O’Rourke states in his crisp, clear and quietly devastating history, “UK policymakers had been focused on what was required in order to achieve a domestic consensus in Britain. Not surprisingly, they had produced a blueprint that was indeed a very good deal for Britain – but in so doing they had paid insufficient attention to other countries’ interests.” And of course it has not worked since 2016 for precisely the same reasons. Here, as in so much else, we see that if Brexit has a history, it is not a linear one – it loops back not just to an imagined past but to assumptions about Britain’s place in the world that were untenable even in the 1950s.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/ ... rke-review
Scattershot journalism.
You can compare all the history like the 1956 idea/failure but that never happened and times and goverments change. The only relevant facts are that of when the UK first joined the EU (EEC) in 1973 followed by the 1975 referendum for continued membership which had a 67% vote in favour of staying. The UK has far from had it it's own way being vetoed by the French government in 1963 and again in 1967. Only in 1969 did the UK get the green light to join. So it makes no difference to what plan the UK government agrees is best it will still be down to the remainder of the EU to decide and agree.
DeGaulle
did not want the UK in
Re: Brexit what Brexit!
Posted: 16 Jan 2019, 1:24pm
by Marky Dread
Dr. Medulla wrote: ↑16 Jan 2019, 12:26pm
Marky Dread wrote: ↑16 Jan 2019, 12:12pm
Dr. Medulla wrote: ↑16 Jan 2019, 11:33am
File under: History, Rhyming, not Repeating
In 1956, the then chancellor of the exchequer Harold Macmillan commissioned his officials to suggest the best way for Britain to integrate itself into the rapidly growing western European economy. Their plan, soon adopted as official policy, was that Britain and the emerging European Community would both join a new free trade area for industrial goods. In this perfect world, Britain would not be in the EC, would not have to pool any of its sovereignty with the other European powers, would maintain its preferential trade with the Commonwealth, would enjoy frictionless trade with Europe but would still be free to do whatever deals it wanted with the rest of the world. It could, in other words, have its cake and eat it. And why would the other Europeans agree to this? Because, as the Board of Trade explained: “The possibility of UK cooperation would be so welcome [to the Europeans] that we should be able to enter the plan more or less on our own terms.”
If this sounds familiar even to those of us who are not historians of British economic policy in the 1950s, it’s because it is the vision for Brexit that was advertised 60 years later. Plan G, as it was known in 1956, is now Plan A for the true believers: we can have all the benefits of being in the EU without the burdens and compromises of actual membership. And the other Europeans will be so glad that we have condescended to deal with them that we can dictate our own terms.
It didn’t work in 1956, not least because, as Kevin O’Rourke states in his crisp, clear and quietly devastating history, “UK policymakers had been focused on what was required in order to achieve a domestic consensus in Britain. Not surprisingly, they had produced a blueprint that was indeed a very good deal for Britain – but in so doing they had paid insufficient attention to other countries’ interests.” And of course it has not worked since 2016 for precisely the same reasons. Here, as in so much else, we see that if Brexit has a history, it is not a linear one – it loops back not just to an imagined past but to assumptions about Britain’s place in the world that were untenable even in the 1950s.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/ ... rke-review
Scattershot journalism.
You can compare all the history like the 1956 idea/failure but that never happened and times and goverments change. The only relevant facts are that of when the UK first joined the EU (EEC) in 1973 followed by the 1975 referendum for continued membership which had a 67% vote in favour of staying. The UK has far from had it it's own way being vetoed by the French government in 1963 and again in 1967. Only in 1969 did the UK get the green light to join. So it makes no difference to what plan the UK government agrees is best it will still be down to the remainder of the EU to decide and agree.
The point is only that the dream of a "cake and eat it" relationship with Europe is not something peculiar to UKIP in the 2nd decade of the 21st century. Historians are attracted to the these kinds of ideological echoes, that ideas, good or bad, never die, but hibernate and mutate and emerge again at the oddest times. William Faulkner put it so wonderfully when he said the past isn't dead, it's not even past.
Don't disagree with you or Faulkner. However my point is simple move on and change history. No one ever (voters) thought for a second that the so called "cake and eat it" relationship with Europe was ever obtainable. There are many different views to why people want to stay or go. A lot of it as I said before is generational a lot of older people are of the opinion that they are sick and tired of being governed via Brussels and certain EU legislation is simply stupid. This is no doubt feulled by the UK press printing fron page picture of the wrong shaped bananas etc. The younger generation are a little more savvy and obviously require a much brighter future.
I'm still of the opinion that a second vote now would yeild a far bigger remain vote. Most people are sick to their eye teeth of Brexit and want the mess brought to a close. The politicians are secretly loving every bloody minute of it taking centre stage, sadly it's not about the "them" it's about the "us".
Re: Brexit what Brexit!
Posted: 16 Jan 2019, 1:25pm
by Marky Dread
Silent Majority wrote: ↑16 Jan 2019, 12:42pm
Marky Dread wrote: ↑16 Jan 2019, 12:12pm
Dr. Medulla wrote: ↑16 Jan 2019, 11:33am
File under: History, Rhyming, not Repeating
In 1956, the then chancellor of the exchequer Harold Macmillan commissioned his officials to suggest the best way for Britain to integrate itself into the rapidly growing western European economy. Their plan, soon adopted as official policy, was that Britain and the emerging European Community would both join a new free trade area for industrial goods. In this perfect world, Britain would not be in the EC, would not have to pool any of its sovereignty with the other European powers, would maintain its preferential trade with the Commonwealth, would enjoy frictionless trade with Europe but would still be free to do whatever deals it wanted with the rest of the world. It could, in other words, have its cake and eat it. And why would the other Europeans agree to this? Because, as the Board of Trade explained: “The possibility of UK cooperation would be so welcome [to the Europeans] that we should be able to enter the plan more or less on our own terms.”
If this sounds familiar even to those of us who are not historians of British economic policy in the 1950s, it’s because it is the vision for Brexit that was advertised 60 years later. Plan G, as it was known in 1956, is now Plan A for the true believers: we can have all the benefits of being in the EU without the burdens and compromises of actual membership. And the other Europeans will be so glad that we have condescended to deal with them that we can dictate our own terms.
It didn’t work in 1956, not least because, as Kevin O’Rourke states in his crisp, clear and quietly devastating history, “UK policymakers had been focused on what was required in order to achieve a domestic consensus in Britain. Not surprisingly, they had produced a blueprint that was indeed a very good deal for Britain – but in so doing they had paid insufficient attention to other countries’ interests.” And of course it has not worked since 2016 for precisely the same reasons. Here, as in so much else, we see that if Brexit has a history, it is not a linear one – it loops back not just to an imagined past but to assumptions about Britain’s place in the world that were untenable even in the 1950s.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/ ... rke-review
Scattershot journalism.
You can compare all the history like the 1956 idea/failure but that never happened and times and goverments change. The only relevant facts are that of when the UK first joined the EU (EEC) in 1973 followed by the 1975 referendum for continued membership which had a 67% vote in favour of staying. The UK has far from had it it's own way being vetoed by the French government in 1963 and again in 1967. Only in 1969 did the UK get the green light to join. So it makes no difference to what plan the UK government agrees is best it will still be down to the remainder of the EU to decide and agree.
DeGaulle
did not want the UK in
Hated the British and had a huge grudge against the Americans.
Re: Brexit what Brexit!
Posted: 16 Jan 2019, 2:51pm
by coffeepotman
[quote="Marky Dread" post_id=514554 time=1547648018 user_id=123
US
I'm stunned that the president has the power to shut everything down. Forcing people who are trying to feed their families to have no job/income.
[/quote]
I think most Americans are stunned that this is going on, people are being forced to work though not getting paid. It's just the normal insanity, nothing surprises me anymore. SNAFU
Re: Brexit what Brexit!
Posted: 16 Jan 2019, 3:03pm
by Marky Dread
coffeepotman wrote: ↑16 Jan 2019, 2:51pm
[quote="Marky Dread" post_id=514554 time=1547648018 user_id=123
US
I'm stunned that the president has the power to shut everything down. Forcing people who are trying to feed their families to have no job/income.
I think most Americans are stunned that this is going on, people are being forced to work though not getting paid. It's just the normal insanity, nothing surprises me anymore.
SNAFU
[/quote]
Yep sadly this both sides of the pond.
Re: Brexit what Brexit!
Posted: 16 Jan 2019, 3:25pm
by 101Walterton
coffeepotman wrote: ↑16 Jan 2019, 2:51pm
[quote="Marky Dread" post_id=514554 time=1547648018 user_id=123
US
I'm stunned that the president has the power to shut everything down. Forcing people who are trying to feed their families to have no job/income.
I think most Americans are stunned that this is going on, people are being forced to work though not getting paid. It's just the normal insanity, nothing surprises me anymore. SNAFU
[/quote]
Forget the circus and the wall of death I think this is the single point I find unbelievable.
Re: Brexit what Brexit!
Posted: 16 Jan 2019, 4:02pm
by Silent Majority
DUP earning their billion.
Re: Brexit what Brexit!
Posted: 16 Jan 2019, 4:43pm
by Marky Dread
Re: Brexit what Brexit!
Posted: 18 Jan 2019, 7:51am
by Dr. Medulla
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... or-purpose
The external problem is almost always an expression of an internal problem.
Re: Brexit what Brexit!
Posted: 18 Jan 2019, 12:20pm
by Marky Dread
So the guy wastes all those words talking about Alice in Wonderland and the Dodo and so on. Just so he can state the bleeding obvious. Yes we have an archaic goverment system that the majority of Brits would love to see destroyed. Getting blood from a stone would more achieveable that getting those old bastards out of the house of lords.
Re: Brexit what Brexit!
Posted: 24 Feb 2019, 11:43am
by Dr. Medulla
